Subject: [Sipping] WGLC review of draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:25:29 -0500

Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Sept-03-2008
Review Deadline: Sept-03-2008
Status: WGLC

Review summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has
nits that should be fixed before publication.

I had reviewed -00 version of this draft (thread archived at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping/current/msg15465.html).

-01 version addresses a majority of comments in -00.  The ones
below are pertinent to -01.

- REQ-009: I still do not like the vague "tens of millions of
concurrent users" (the reasons for this are in -00.)  It may be
better to rephrase this sentence thus:

   The solution MUST be scalable (note: we view scalability on
   the order of tens of millions of users instead of tens of
   thousands.)

- REQ-010: The suggested rewrite is better than the text in -00.
Some nits on the new text:
   s/will be coming from/will be from/
   s/watchers form the/watchers from the/

- Section 4, third paragraph: I still believe that the phrase
"The IETF sometimes does not give the right priority to actual
deployments when designing a protocol" is an opinion that really
does not contribute to the discussion at hand.  You could convey
the same meaning without imparting a judgmental tone by slightly
rewording as follows:

OLD:

    It seems that we need to think about the problem in a
    different way.  We need to think about scalability as part of the
    protocol design.  The IETF sometimes does not give the right priority
    to actual deployments when designing a protocol but in this case it
    seems that if we do not think about scalability with the protocol
    design it will be very hard to scale.

NEW:

    Adequate care is must be taken in addressing scalability as part
    of the initial protocol design; efforts at an attempt to shoehorn
    scalability at a later date will be doomed to failure.

IMHO, the above is just as critical without being overtly
judgmental.

- S4, last paragraph at end of page 5:

   s/method is negotiating media/method negotiates media/

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Sriram Parameswar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:51:01 -0700

Vijay,
Thank you for taking the time to review the document. I will work with the co-authors to make the necessary edits and submit at the earliest.

Regards,

Sriram Parameswar

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:25 PM
To: [email-masked]; Sriram Parameswar; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; Mary Barnes; sipping
Subject: WGLC review of draft-ietf-sipping-presence-scaling-requirements-01

OLD:

NEW:

Thanks,

- vijay